Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #75
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, June 29 1996        Volume 01 : Number 075

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 96 09:48:42 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 

> From [email-masked] Sat Jun 29 03:10 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:07:31 -0400
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=us-ascii> 
> Content-Length: 1145
> 
> Spelling Moon
> Malenkai
> 
>       Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) 
> must spell all words in the said message correctly. If some Player B 
> feels that A misspelled any word(s), Player B may call a hearing, and
> in so doing, must state the number of words allegedly misspelled 
> (hereafter known as X). In this hearing, all Players will send their
> votes to the Assistant Tabulator and vote either "Yes, he misspelled X
> words", or "No, he's an A student, just passed third grade", or abstain.
> 
> 	Players have 3 days from when the hearing is called in order to
> vote. At the end of that time the votes will be counted by the Assistant 
> Tabulator and a simple majority (50% or more) will determine the outcome.
> The Assistant Tabulator will then publicly announce the outcome of the 
> hearing. If the verdict shows that a person misspelled X words, he 
> is immediately sent to the Gaol for a sentence of X days, with no
> grace period (this clause superceeds any mutable rule which would
> otherwise give the player a grace period). 
> 
> 	If the verdict shows any other result, he gets the nickname
> Heavy Metal Hare for the next 3 days.
> 
 I like the intent of this proposal but unless both UK and US
spellings are explicitly allowed I would have to vote against it.
 As it is currently phrased I could be jailed for using the correct
UK spellings.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:39:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, R Shaw wrote:

> > Spelling Moon
> > Malenkai
>[snip - reffer to previous postings] 
> 
> > 
> I like the intent of this proposal but unless both UK and US
> spellings are explicitly allowed I would have to vote against it.
> As it is currently phrased I could be jailed for using the correct
> UK spellings.
> 
On the off-chance that an earlier proposal by Malenkai passes, UK spelling
might even take precedence in some cases.

A couple of comments:
- - This is a very obvious satire on Politeness Moon, and I intend to treat
it as such
- - I find the idea of voting on correct spelling absurd, and it only makes
sense in the above context.
- -The point of the spellingfix proposal (I fail to recall the number) was
to clean up the rule-set in a non-destructive manner. When someone
corrects my spelling, I don't feel like they are 'placing me in third
grade'. If we were all perfect spellers, I might have been inclined to
agree. Most are native English speakers (some variant), and make constant
spelling mistakes. 
Personally I think that the English language is at fault - I recently
posted the URL for the Simplified Spelling Society, some of you might find
it interesting

Nicolo Flychuck
]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 96 12:35:11 MET DST
From: [email-masked] (Julian Richardson)
Subject: leaving the game

I'm leaving the Ecole today. Please take me off the ackanomic
mailing list. Sad to go, but it's chaos here. I've had fun. I'll
probably be back.

See you round,

Dr McSpong
- -- 
- ---------------- Ce sont mes avis, pas les avis de l'ecole. ----------------
Julian Richardson  http://www.dmi.ens.fr/~richard  mailto:[email-masked]
Departement de Mathematiques et d'Informatique, Ecole Normale Superieure,
45 Rue D'Ulm, PARIS 75230 Cedex 05, FRANCE
Tel: +33 (1) 44 32 32 77  Fax: +33 (1) 44 32 20 80 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 06:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Registrarness

Misc registrar-type updates:

Merlin the Happy Pig has been removed from the game by rule 362.
Dr McSpong has left the game, apparently by exercising Rule 111.
Techno has changed his e-mail address to [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 03:07:51 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Custody Report

As of today, Friday, the Custody Records show the following:
Cells 1-500: Empty
Cells 501-345,000: Reserved for High Security prisoners
Cell 345,001: Dr McSpong. 3 days. Scheduled release Monday 1st July.
Cells 345,002-Infinity: Empty.

All cells are provided with a PC and modem, allowing prisoners to
keep in touch with the Ackaworld and to transact the limited range
of Ackabusiness which they are legally allowed.

Brinjal. 
(Gaoler)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 09:51:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Acka: Hm: 

From rule 457:

A player shall be considered "on vacation" when he makes a public request that
he desires to be on vacation. Players are only allowed to put themselves on
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vacation. The Rules may specify other ways a Player may be put on vacation. 
^^^^^^^^

Three interperetations for this sentence:

I. The only thing players can do is put themselves on vacation

II. The only thing players can put on vacation is themselves

III. The only thing that can put itself on vacation is a Player

How is one supposed to decide among the three? Appealing to Game Custom here
seems kind of weak... (The first is a slightly less than pleasant option...) 

- ---Pascal

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:07:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

The following, CFJ 198, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 198
  Subject: Just ignore the vacationers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: De'ghew (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Pascal (selected 28-Jun-96 20:00h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Rule 362 does not apply to vacationing players.

Malenkai's reasoning:

The argument rests on the fact that a "vacationing player" is not the
same as an "active player", and the term "player", as used in R 326, has
been interpreted to mean "active player" since the beginning of the game,
and there is no compelling, legal, or urgent reason to suddenly change this
interpretation now. There are compelling reasons as to why this
interpretation should not change:

1) A player could not vacation for more than one week without being
kicked out of the game. An overly harsh way to treat people who, for
example, travel to Europe for 10 days.

2) Once R 362 is invoked on the vacationing player under this would be
interpretation, they are out of the game, with no chance for even a
reply. I quote from R 457, "Vacationing":

"The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off
vacation."

Thus the player cannot respond to the Speaker's message as required by
R 362. They're only option is:

3) This interpretation will promote more of the objectionable "on vacation"/
"off vacation" behaviour to avoid 1 and 2.

Vacationing players are harmless. They can be ignored, and require no
maintenance. Their offices are handled. I urge the Judge to stick with
the interpretation we've been using for the entire game, or show
compelling reasoning why it needs to, and can be, changd.

Pascal's Reasoning:

I really don't think we can take game custom and override rules with it;
R362 simply doesn't say Active Player, just Player. Even rule 457 doesn't
refer to Active players and Vacationing players as separate subsets of
Players, or make any claims as to the default meaning of Player. There
are simply Players on Vacation, and Players not on Vacation. It seems
that both groups are still Players.

Also the fact that a vacationing player cannot respond to the Speaker's
message does not imply the rule can't be interpereted a certain way; the
rule has a problem, but we can't overlook it.

I suggest, obviously, that noone point out the inactivity of vacationing
players until the rule is fixed.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:18:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: CotC stuff

With pTang back in the game, the Court House has had to undergo massive
expansion, hire new staff, etc. If only we could get a CFJ court fee to
fund this rapid growth :)

In any case, part of this expansion is the Court's own web page, where
the CotC report will now be published. So if you need up to the minute
status on recent CFJs, when the verdicts are due, or are just running a
betting pool on the outcome (as mr cwm once mentioned), its all summarized
at http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~malenkai. It can also be gotten to a
link off of the main Ackanomic page under "Other officers reports and
pages". Its pretty rudimentary now, but if pTang continues to fund our
growth, perhaps we can buy our own server and hire a Webmaster.

So I will now stop sending out the CotC report, unless there is anyone
out there who a) doesn't have web access, and b) really likes the CotC 
report by mail.

Clerk of the Courts

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:03:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> The following, CFJ 198, has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Rule 362 does not apply to vacationing players.
> 

Judge Pascal:
> I suggest, obviously, that noone point out the inactivity of vacationing
> players until the rule is fixed.

Unfortunately, CFJs, unlike rules, can have retroactive application, and
they have, in our history. There was already a request in to remove the
vacationing players per R 362. As the rule was unclear, (necessitating 2
CFJs), it would have been an improper use of official power to interpret
it myself. The rules are clear now, and the request exists. I do not 
believe the rules allow it to be retracted.

I do not want to do this. I belive the vacationing players deserve more
respect. But I will follow the rules, now that they have been clarified.
My options at this point seem to be:

1) Resign as Speaker. If I do that, the request still came while I was
Speaker, so I would still be breaking the rules, as now interpreted,
by not doing it. Not an option. Besides, I a good Speaker. I had that
potato out faster than any predecessor, and I've *possibly* recruited at
least one good player (pTang), to improve our game.

2) Consider this a "penalty worse than losing", and invoke R 111. Athough
I do consider removing these 5 players from the game, 2 of which have 
temporarily lost connectivity, a penalty worse than losing, and have
considered R 111 to avoid the duty, I shall not.

3) Follow the rules, as "strictly written". That seems to have come in
vogue over the last month, so I might as well join the crowd. R 362 says:
 
"then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.",

and I shall do so, when I have the time. The rule does not indicate a
deadline by which such a message must be sent. Certainly there is no 
"custom" on indeterminate or unspecifed durations, heck, the Fat Lady is
still singing from /dev/joe's win. There is a Witchhunt and Politeness
Moon that have still not been announced, and they were called over 2
weeks ago, and they even have time limits on them. Certainly we are all
over the map on interpreting time, especially when it is not specified.
All the Speakers have been all over the map on the time taken to comply
with R 362, and that is irrelevant anyway, as we don't really need to rely
on custom.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:05 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 195 (Niccolo Flychyck) 

I Judge this to be TRUE
At 12:03 AM 26/06/96 -0700 , Malenkai  wrote:

>Clerk of the Courts
> 
>Call for Judgement 195
>  Subject: Counting rule furniture for shortness
>Initiator: /dev/joe
>    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 26-Jun-96 00:01h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>Proposal 866 has less than five lines of text in the body of the proposal,
>and thus ThinMan scored 5 points by R379 when it passed on June 13th.
>
>[CotC note: all text, including and following the line "Reasoning:", was
>cut verbatim from the initiator's CFJ request]
>
>Reasoning:
>The body of proposal 866 was:
>
>A new rule shall be created with the following text:
>--
>If the score of any player becomes greater than the magic number, then the
>magic number shall be increased by 16, or to 11 points above the highest
>player score, whichever is greater.
>--
>
>I don't know if the lines containing "--" count as lines of text, and I
>don't care which way this goes, but I would like ThinMan's score at the
>end of the last cycle to be known.
>
>
While"-" is considered to be an alphanumeric character, by R570, it seems
obvious to me that in this instance the function of this character is to be
used a either a logical or aesthetic delimiter, or both, and therefore the
lines which contain "--" and nothing else cannot be considered to be lines
of text.
This rule has three lines only, and should have been given the 5 points when
it passed.

Nicolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:09 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 202 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

I accept this CFJ 
At 09:14 PM 28/06/96 -0400 , Malenkai  wrote:
>Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen to judge the following (again). He has
>3 days to accept or decline the appointment. It is interesting to
>note that he also has CFJ 193.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 202
>  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
>Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:07 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CotC report 

At 08:04 PM 28/06/96 -0400 , Malenkai  wrote:
>All outstanding CFJs, and their status (I'll probably get around
>to putting this on my web page someday, if I ever get one, so
>I can stop cluttering your e-mail :)
>
>All times in New York Time.
>
You left out 202, also assigned to me. I hereby publically accept Judgements
on both 202 and 194
Nicolo Flychuck

>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:10 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 202 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

I judge this to be FALSE
At 09:14 PM 28/06/96 -0400 , Malenkai  wrote:
>Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen to judge the following (again). He has
>3 days to accept or decline the appointment. It is interesting to
>note that he also has CFJ 193.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 202
>  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
>Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>  I win by paradox because I now point out
>that the legality of the following action:
>"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
>cannot be determined with finality.
>
>pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:
>
>When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
>R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
>(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
>process described in R666 is being continuously
>launched ad infinitum.

R666 is not infinitely recursive. The reasoning is the same as CFJ193.
Note that I am not relying on CFJ 193, I am simply pointing out that the
reasoning of CFJ193 can be quoted in its entirety to explain why R666 is not
recursive. 
Since the argument of recusiveness is false, so is the conclusion concerning
the ownership of the Right Handed Grapefruit, and following that, /dev/joe,
can create as much Right Handed Grapefuit Juice as he likes, as long as no
one else wins the game.

Might I suggest that ammend the number of that rule?
Nicolo Flychuck
>
>I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
>given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
>of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
>awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
>each time the R666 process is carried out.
>
>Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
>time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
>executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
>RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
>of all RHGs.
>
>It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
>/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:12 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 194 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

I accept Judgement on this CFJ
Nicolo Flychuck
At 07:19 PM 28/06/96 -0400 , Malenkai  wrote:
>The following was reassigned to Niccolo Flychuck. He has 3 days to 
>accept or decline the appointment: (The CotC has replaced his 30
>sided die with another one.)
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 194
>  Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
>Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
>    Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (removed from the game)
>2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 28-Jun-96 19:20h New York Time)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:11:14 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 194 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

I judge this to be FALSE

At 07:19 PM 28/06/96 -0400 , Malenkai  wrote:
>The following was reassigned to Niccolo Flychuck. He has 3 days to 
>accept or decline the appointment: (The CotC has replaced his 30
>sided die with another one.)
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 194
>  Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
>Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
>    Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (removed from the game)
>2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 28-Jun-96 19:20h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>The text of immutable rules can't be changed, only that of mutable rules.
>
>Calvin N Hobbes' Reasoning:
>
>I looked through the rules and could not find any rule that protected the
>immutables explicitely, only 491 and then indirectly. The statement has deep
>roots in "pure tradition": why else is there a distinction between "mutable"
>and "immutable"? But let me make a case.
>
>R491 is _specific_ in what kind of rule changes there can be. It says:
>>A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these effects,
>>and no other effects: the creation of a new mutable rule; the
>>amendment of an existing mutable rule; the repeal of an existing
>>mutable rule; a change of the mutability of any rule.
>
>It specifies in no uncertain terms that a change to the text of the rules is
>_legal_ (quote "valid") if and only if it applies to a mutable rule.
>
>
Since there are rules, such as 629,and 695 that do change the text of
immutable rules,and even explicitly claim the authority to do so, then CFJ
statement is obviously false. It is a weak attempt to fly in the face of
reality.

Nicolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:19:11 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Hm: 

"Jason" == Jason Reed <[email-masked]> writes:

Jason> Three interperetations for this sentence:

Jason> I. The only thing players can do is put themselves on vacation

Jason> II. The only thing players can put on vacation is themselves

Jason> III. The only thing that can put itself on vacation is a Player

Jason> How is one supposed to decide among the three? Appealing to
Jason> Game Custom here seems kind of weak... (The first is a slightly
Jason> less than pleasant option...)

i think the third interpretation is contrary to common construction (i
would expect "Only Players are allowed to put themselves on vacation"
in that case).  a good argument can be made for the first
interpretation as the logically most obvious, as the second would be
more clearly expressed as "Players are allowed to put only themselves
on vacation."  but, as you say, the first interpretation is markedly
unpleasant, and i think the spirit of the game forces us to discount
it in favor of the second.

however, this does serve to point out that it's very important to
watch where you put your adverbs.

k.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:29:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 193 Verdict

The following, CFJ 193, has been judged TRUE.

The Court respectfully requests that the Financier redistribute current
account balances under the assumption that 666 is not recursive, so it
can continue with its massive spending plans.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 193
  Subject: R 666, take four
Initiator: mr cwm
    Judge: De'ghew (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 25-Jun-96 20:00h New York Time)

mr cwm's initial comment:

Tiring of the assumption that R666/2 is recursive, I wish to Call For
Judgement on the following Statement:

Statement:

The declaration of a "winner of the cycle" in R666/2(c) does not invoke
R666/2.

mr cwm's reasoning:

I have two arguments, either one of which I believe to be sufficient to
justify a descision of TRUE.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Argument 1:

R666/2(a) suspends Ackanomic play.  R666/2(b) through R666/s(m) are
Ackanomic procedures to be carried out beyond the bounds of Ackanomic
play, much as setting up "queen on color" is part of chess but not part of
chess play, or as the selection of the initial rules set was part of
Ackanomic but not part of Ackanomic play.  The re-invocation of R666/2
would be Ackanomic play, and, thus, is impermissible, as Ackanomic play is
suspended.

Argument 2:

When R666 was adopted, "winner" had a clear meaning used unambiguously and
consistantly through the rules, namely, the "winner of the game."
R666/2(c) defines an explicit difference between winners as defined by
other rules, the declaration of which causes R666/2 to be invoked, and
"winner of the cycle," which is essentially a title.  (Historically, this
prevents the claim that the game is over when a winner is declared, etc.)
While things may have been muddied since then by other rules referring to
winners of cycles, if R666/2(c) is to guide play in the form in which it
was voted on (R105/0), that form must include the meanings the words had
at the time, namely, that "winner" and "winner of the cycle" are two
different and distinct things.  R666/2(c) then, "The winner" (of the game,
as defined by other rules, the declaration of which invoked R666/2 rather
than ending the game) "is declared winner of the cycle" (a title, which is
something else entirely, and thus does not re-invoke R666/2), is not
recursive.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I accept both of mr cwm's  arguments.
Reasoning follows each one.

>Argument 1:
>
>R666/2(a) suspends Ackanomic play.  R666/2(b) through R666/s(m) are
>Ackanomic procedures to be carried out beyond the bounds of Ackanomic
>play, much as setting up "queen on color" is part of chess but not part of
>chess play, or as the selection of the initial rules set was part of
>Ackanomic but not part of Ackanomic play.  The re-invocation of R666/2
>would be Ackanomic play, and, thus, is impermissible, as Ackanomic play is
>suspended.

I accept the argument as is.
I also reffer you to the Judgement on CFJ 189, while it is not binding, it
is a Judgement I'm in complete agreement with. Hence, I must also accept
this reasoning. There have been a few wins by in the last couple of weeks,
but their number has not only been finite, but rather small as well.

>
>Argument 2:
>
>When R666 was adopted, "winner" had a clear meaning used unambiguously and
>consistantly through the rules, namely, the "winner of the game."
>R666/2(c) defines an explicit difference between winners as defined by
>other rules, the declaration of which causes R666/2 to be invoked, and
>"winner of the cycle," which is essentially a title.  (Historically, this
>prevents the claim that the game is over when a winner is declared, etc.)
>While things may have been muddied since then by other rules referring to
>winners of cycles, if R666/2(c) is to guide play in the form in which it
>was voted on (R105/0), that form must include the meanings the words had
>at the time, namely, that "winner" and "winner of the cycle" are two
>different and distinct things.  R666/2(c) then, "The winner" (of the game,
>as defined by other rules, the declaration of which invoked R666/2 rather
>than ending the game) "is declared winner of the cycle" (a title, which is
>something else entirely, and thus does not re-invoke R666/2), is not
>recursive.
>

I am in complete agreement with the reasoning argument as well, if I thought
I could put it better ( and I usually I think I can:) I would add a lengthy
paragraph of my own.

R666 has already been invoked before, when Robert Sevin won the game. If
R666 had been recursive, we would  be experiencing the alegged effects back
then as well. Personally I thought the whole recursive argument was a big
red herring to begin with, and if mr cwm hadn't called a CFJ, I might have
called one myself.

Quite apart from the Judgement, I think the rule should be fixed

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:35:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 195 Verdict

The following, CFJ 195, has been judged TRUE. 

I realize the verdict was mistakenly sent to the forum by the Judge. The 
previous CotC  redsitributed them, I can only follow the rules by 
redistributing them so I will, and the CotC distributation serves 
as the official verdict time.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 195
  Subject: Counting rule furniture for shortness
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 26-Jun-96 00:01h New York Time)

Statement:

Proposal 866 has less than five lines of text in the body of the proposal,
and thus ThinMan scored 5 points by R379 when it passed on June 13th.

[CotC note: all text, including and following the line "Reasoning:", was
cut verbatim from the initiator's CFJ request]

Reasoning:
The body of proposal 866 was:

A new rule shall be created with the following text:
- --
If the score of any player becomes greater than the magic number, then the
magic number shall be increased by 16, or to 11 points above the highest
player score, whichever is greater.
- --

I don't know if the lines containing "--" count as lines of text, and I
don't care which way this goes, but I would like ThinMan's score at the
end of the last cycle to be known.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

While"-" is considered to be an alphanumeric character, by R570, it seems
obvious to me that in this instance the function of this character is to be
used a either a logical or aesthetic delimiter, or both, and therefore the
lines which contain "--" and nothing else cannot be considered to be lines
of text.
This rule has three lines only, and should have been given the 5 points when
it passed.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:39:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 202 Verdict

The following, CFJ 202, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 202
  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

Statement:

  I win by paradox because I now point out
that the legality of the following action:
"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
cannot be determined with finality.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
process described in R666 is being continuously
launched ad infinitum.

I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
each time the R666 process is carried out.

Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
of all RHGs.

It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

R666 is not infinitely recursive. The reasoning is the same as CFJ193.
Note that I am not relying on CFJ 193, I am simply pointing out that the
reasoning of CFJ193 can be quoted in its entirety to explain why R666 is not
recursive.
Since the argument of recusiveness is false, so is the conclusion concerning
the ownership of the Right Handed Grapefruit, and following that, /dev/joe,
can create as much Right Handed Grapefuit Juice as he likes, as long as no
one else wins the game.

Might I suggest that ammend the number of that rule?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:42:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 194 Verdict

The following, CFJ 194, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 194
  Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
    Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (removed from the game)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 28-Jun-96 19:20h New York Time)

Statement:

The text of immutable rules can't be changed, only that of mutable rules.

Calvin N Hobbes' Reasoning:

I looked through the rules and could not find any rule that protected the
immutables explicitely, only 491 and then indirectly. The statement has deep
roots in "pure tradition": why else is there a distinction between "mutable"
and "immutable"? But let me make a case.

R491 is _specific_ in what kind of rule changes there can be. It says:
>A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these effects,
>and no other effects: the creation of a new mutable rule; the
>amendment of an existing mutable rule; the repeal of an existing
>mutable rule; a change of the mutability of any rule.

It specifies in no uncertain terms that a change to the text of the rules is
_legal_ (quote "valid") if and only if it applies to a mutable rule.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

Since there are rules, such as 629,and 695 that do change the text of
immutable rules,and even explicitly claim the authority to do so, then CFJ
statement is obviously false. It is a weak attempt to fly in the face of
reality.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 96 13:08:39 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 934

Proposal 934 - Sat Jun 29 13:08:38 EDT 1996
Massive Repeal Omission
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Repeal rule 607.
[ The File Clerk won't be needed if P926 passes and repeals the other
contract rules. ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 96 13:14:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 936

Proposal 936 - Sat Jun 29 13:14:02 EDT 1996
	gsub(//,"")
Pascal  (Jason Reed)
	print $0 >>tfile
	print name[key] "  (" first[key] " " last[key] ")" >>tfile
	body = 1
	next
	} 

{if(body) print $0 >>tfile}

END	{if(tfile) {
		mailout = "mail -s \"Ackanomic: Proposal " lastprop "\" acka <" tfile
	print mailout
	system(mailout)
	}}

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 203 (ThinMan)

> 
> Call for Judgement 203
>   Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
> Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>     Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:25h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The legality of the following action:
> "/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
> cannot be determined with finality.
> 

I believe that the creation of Juice is unregulated, and thus permitted by
R115.  The fact that this particular Juice is named Right-Handed
Grapefruit Juice does not require that the squeezer possess a Right-Handed
Grapefruit.  I believe it is produced by squeezing the Golden Frog :)

(I'm behind on my mail, I apologize it this has been pointed out already.)

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:29:42 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: being in gaol 

"Phil" == Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> writes:

Phil> Subject lines begining with Acka: or Ackanomic: are part of
Phil> existing game custom, and were at one time required by a rule.

i don't see any rule that requires Players abide by game custom.  all
game custom does is guide the interpretation of the rules.  i am free
to ignore this particular game custom as i see fit.

Phil> Things are changing, but not all players are able to filter by
Phil> sender, and some simply choose not to.

that's their choice.

Phil> I for one filter by SENDER or SUBJECT because not all ackanomic
Phil> mail comes from the list.

i haven't seen a public message that wasn't sent via the remailer at
wilma for a long time.  and i want ackanomic mail that isn't public
(even if it has silly little things in the subject) to show up in my
inbox; i'm less likely to ignore it then. 

Phil> I request that you continue to begin your subject lines for this
Phil> game with Acka: or Ackanomic:

your request is duly noted.  however, if you really want to see "Acka"
on all messages that pass through the remailer, i suggest you talk to
the Postmaster about the possibility of having it automatically add
the appropriate tag to all messages.  this is done at Pnomic and at
Agora.

k.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 204 (mr cwm)

I accept, and will probably return Judgement on Monday, when I can
acheive a proper Judicial attitude through comtemplation of my hard copy
of the rules.

- -mr cwm

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> mr cwm has been chosen to judge the following. He has
> 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 204
>   Subject:  Just curious
> Initiator:  Malenkai
>     Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:55h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Immutable rules may defer precedence to Mutable rules, either explicitly
> or implicitly.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> I've heard both sides of this argument, actually. I'm interested in the
> Judge's opinion. I at least refer the Judge to R 108 and R 210.
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:35:35 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Ackanomic: not really Proposal 936?

this is one strange proposal!

- ------- Forwarded Message

>From mizar!wilma.che.utexas.edu!owner-ackanomic  Sat Jun 29 12:30:28 1996
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] ()
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 936
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 96 13:14:04 EDT

Proposal 936 - Sat Jun 29 13:14:02 EDT 1996
	gsub(//,"")
Pascal  (Jason Reed)
	print $0 >>tfile
	print name[key] "  (" first[key] " " last[key] ")" >>tfile
	body = 1
	next
	} 

{if(body) print $0 >>tfile}

END	{if(tfile) {
		mailout = "mail -s \"Ackanomic: Proposal " lastprop "\" acka <" tfile
	print mailout
	system(mailout)
	}}

- ------- End of Forwarded Message

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:29:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC CFJ Casino

This is based on a comment mr cwm made a while back about having
a CFJ Casino. Although the comment was possibly made in jest, I 
thought the idea deserved some exploration. I've thought of some
of the potential problems, but in my mind, the potential *fun*
outweighs them. Perpaps the concept can be applied to proposals and
elections.

We can move this to acka-research if people think the idea is viable.

1) The CFJ Casino is hereby created. It is a Protected entity. The Casino
shall be run by the officer currently responsible for administering CFJs.
For the purposes of this rule, that officer shall be known as the "House".

2) Upon initial distribution of the CFJ, the House shall decide if
"betting is on", or "betting is off", and shall make that designation
part of the official distribution. The House shall use common sense to
determine if betting should be on, by considering the frivilous nature
of the CFJ. For example, betting would probably be off for a CFJ with
a statement such as "I make Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice by squeezing
the Golden Frog, and have therefore won the game". Note that this should
be read as *frivilous*, not necessarily *no-brainer*.

3) Once such a designation has been made, it cannot be changed for the
entire life of the CFJ, including any appeals.

4) Once a CFJ has been distributed for which betting is on, the House will
accept bets on the outcome of the CFJ from the players. "Outcome", must
be a single statement specifying whether the player is betting the verdict
will be TRUE or FALSE". All players are eligible to wager, except those
explicitly excluded. Wagers must be positive and in an amount of currency
evenly divisible by 10, and the total amount wagered by a particular
player on a particular CFJ may not exceed 100 units.

5) The House, the first judge-designate of the CFJ, and the initiator of
the CFJ are explicity excluded from betting on the particular CFJ.

6) Once a verdict of TRUE or FALSE is announced, the House announces
the results and payoffs of all the wagers. The Financier shall update
all of the books appropriately. If such results show a particular player
to go into debt [[I'm not sure what happens]]. On a verdict of UNDECIDED,
the thing is still in progress, and all monies are held pending a TRUE
or FALSE.

7) If the verdict is appealed, and it is overturned, the results of 6)
are "reversed", and new payoffs are published and accounted for as in 6).

8) Results and payoffs are as follows:
	a) If the player was incorrect in their prediction of the verdict,
90% of their wager goes to the Treasury, the remaining 10% is a "vigorish"
that is retained by the House.
	b) If the player was correct, their initial wager is doubled with
funds from the Treasury, a 10% vigorish is retained from that total by the
House, and the remaining funds are disbusred to the player.

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #75
******************************